Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

16 year old lost at sea

Mountaineering, rock climbing, and hiking news.
 

Postby kozman18 » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:06 pm

Dingus Milktoast wrote:How about those idiot tourists that sailed too close to Somolia... free rescue?

DMT

Societies decide which risks to "socialize" -- meaning that the members of a society agree implicitly or explicitly that they will all shoulder the burden of certain risks -- fire, accidents, etc. The risks are spread them out, just like insurance -- except the insurance premiums are in the form of taxes. Risks that are outside the "societal agreement" aren't covered. When the agreements are implicit, it is sometimes hard to tell where certain risks fall. But that doesn't mean there are no limits -- just hard to define.

Societies are free to explicitly define what risks they are willing to accept. For example, NH passed a law allowing the recoupment of costs for rescues where the victim was neglient. I don't agree with such a rule because the standard is too low, but it is a perfect example of a society deciding (explicitly) that it will not bear the burden of rescuing negligent people. In NH, negligent people pay.

Did Australia decide, implicilty or explicitily, to pay for the rescue of an American citizen in the Indian Ocean pursuing her very risky dream of sailing around the world? I don't know anything about Australian law, but it's pretty doubtful. If you are asking me if she should pay -- yes, because I see the risks that she took as being well outside the "societal" contract (at least the types that exists in the USA). In other words, I don't think an individual can expect to shift the risk of any and all activities onto society.

As for the tourists near Somalia, they were French, recued by French commandos, no? Again, not sure what the laws in France would say about this -- it may depend on where the tourists were, what they were doing, etc. Don't know enough to express a personal opinion.

For the record, I am not saying they shouldn't be rescued, just discussing who pays.
User Avatar
kozman18

 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:14 am
Location: Burlington, Vermont, United States
Thanked: 23 times in 17 posts

Postby mrchad9 » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:10 pm

kozman18 wrote:Did Australia decide, implicilty or explicitily, to pay for the rescue of an American citizen in the Indian Ocean pursuing her very risky dream of sailing around the world? I don't know anything about Australian law, but it's pretty doubtful.

Nor do I know anything about Austrailian law, but if it was an Australian (or US) citizen in US waters the US Coast Gaurd would've pulled them in for free. So what's the big deal?
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1208 times in 819 posts

Postby butitsadryheat » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:11 pm

surgent wrote:Please note: none of this is an ad hominem on Abby herself. It is better directed at her parents, and to those who find such feats by young kids "amazing", as if all it took for Abby to do this was a lot of courage and determination (ignoring the convenient fact she had access to a nice big boat, a lot of scratch, and parents who apparently were content to let their kid battle 50-foot waves in the Indian Ocean ... maybe they had a spare back home?)


Actually, they might :lol: Mom was unable to attend the NBC Today show taping this morning, because she was giving birth to child #8 !!!

Finally, I don’t understand why she should expect a free rescue at the expense of the Australian taxpayers -- she took the risk and yet they pay the bill. Hey -- happy to throw gas on that fire again . . . .


Actually, the dad mentioned this morning, and I agree somewhat, that this is similar to many SAR ops on the ocean. Costs are shared between countries all the time. If an Australian sailor was in need here in the states, the US Coast Guard would respond, and not charge, as would be the case in any other country that performs these ops.

He also made a good point about how the media has run with this, and ranted about how "dangerous" this was. He pointed out how many people who are "experienced" get into trouble every day on the seas, including 5 who died this week off the coast of California, yet we heard nothign about it. Were they too inexperienced?

Good questions, all of them, with no good answer
User Avatar
butitsadryheat

 
Posts: 8247
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 7:59 pm
Location: Bakersfield, California, United States
Thanked: 1449 times in 1051 posts

Postby kozman18 » Wed Jun 30, 2010 7:17 pm

mrchad9 wrote:
kozman18 wrote:Did Australia decide, implicilty or explicitily, to pay for the rescue of an American citizen in the Indian Ocean pursuing her very risky dream of sailing around the world? I don't know anything about Australian law, but it's pretty doubtful.

Nor do I know anything about Austrailian law, but if it was an Australian (or US) citizen in US waters the US Coast Gaurd would've pulled them in for free. So what's the big deal?


My point is that any society can decide what it is willing to do or not do. If the US decides all coastal oceanic rescues are free, regardless of the actions of the victims, then no big deal because we decided, as a group, to spread the risk of such rescues around. We could easily decide that such rescues are not free. NH citizens decided they would not pay for the rescue of negligent people. The societal group providing the service can set the rules, and they often do.
User Avatar
kozman18

 
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 3:14 am
Location: Burlington, Vermont, United States
Thanked: 23 times in 17 posts

Postby surgent » Wed Jun 30, 2010 9:20 pm

Dingus Milktoast wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:There's a lot of people out there who deserve more credit than her. She was simply lucky enough to be born into the right circumstances.


What does that mean? That jealousy and class envy are legitimate criticisms? Can *anyone* with sufficient cash sail solo around the world?

DMT


You're confounding "necessary" with "sufficient". To sail solo around the world, it is necessary to have access to money, but not sufficient, since skill plays a role, too. However, the failure to have access to the funds (e.g. not meeting the necessary condition) essentially blocks out all would-be sail-around-the-world aspirants, regardless of whatever skill they possess. This is the predicament faced by 99%+ of those who share similar goals.

My point was that I believe there are many, many kids who have the maturity and skill to pull off feats such as this (or similar), but since most will never have the circumstances (cash and related) to attempt the dream as children, we must view Abby's situation as highly unique, and to not judge "all the rest" as lazy dorito-eating blobs because they didn't share Abby's circumstances.

There's still the ethical issue of allowing your child (<18yo) to do this, no matter the situation.

You can be impressed and heartened by Abby all you want. She seems like a good kid. But don't lose sight of the surrounding details. Had her folks said "no, you can wait until you're 18 to sail solo", would we have thought less of her?
User Avatar
surgent

 
Posts: 462
Joined: Wed Aug 20, 2003 2:45 pm
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 88 times in 55 posts

Postby mrchad9 » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:13 pm

butitsadryheat wrote:Actually, the dad mentioned this morning...He also made a good point about how the media has run with this, and ranted about how "dangerous" this was. He pointed out how many people who are "experienced" get into trouble every day on the seas, including 5 who died this week off the coast of California, yet we heard nothign about it. Were they too inexperienced?

That's a terrible arguement to make!!! (I realize it is the dad's position, not yours).

That's like saying firefighting is dangerous, trained experienced people die and get into trouble all the time fighting fires. So why should anyone critisize a parent for letting a kid put on a suit and run into a burning building.

BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A STUPID THING TO DO!
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1208 times in 819 posts

Postby Lolli » Wed Jun 30, 2010 10:42 pm

:?

Is this a climbing site?
I must have come to the wrong place...
I had this funny notion that people who climbed usually understood other people who wants to reach the limits of their ablity, but I must have been wrong.

It's rather depressing, with all this judging of people who one doesn't know, but make up ideas about, in order to diss an adventerous soul.
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby mrchad9 » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:32 pm

Lolli wrote::?

Is this a climbing site?
I must have come to the wrong place...
I had this funny notion that people who climbed usually understood other people who wants to reach the limits of their ablity, but I must have been wrong.

It's rather depressing, with all this judging of people who one doesn't know, but make up ideas about, in order to diss an adventerous soul.

She can do that activity all she wants, and not one person would be dissing this 'adventerous' soul if she was doing her activity for her own sake. When someone on this site starts making the rounds on TV they will be asking for the same scrutiny for themselves. Her goal is more than reaching the limit of her ability.
User Avatar
mrchad9

 
Posts: 4193
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2009 12:01 am
Location: San Ramon, California, United States
Thanked: 1208 times in 819 posts

Postby robzilla » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:36 pm

kozman18 wrote:
Dingus Milktoast wrote:How about those idiot tourists that sailed too close to Somolia... free rescue?

DMT

Societies decide which risks to "socialize" -- meaning that the members of a society agree implicitly or explicitly that they will all shoulder the burden of certain risks -- fire, accidents, etc. The risks are spread them out, just like insurance -- except the insurance premiums are in the form of taxes. Risks that are outside the "societal agreement" aren't covered. When the agreements are implicit, it is sometimes hard to tell where certain risks fall. But that doesn't mean there are no limits -- just hard to define.

Societies are free to explicitly define what risks they are willing to accept. For example, NH passed a law allowing the recoupment of costs for rescues where the victim was neglient. I don't agree with such a rule because the standard is too low, but it is a perfect example of a society deciding (explicitly) that it will not bear the burden of rescuing negligent people. In NH, negligent people pay.

Did Australia decide, implicilty or explicitily, to pay for the rescue of an American citizen in the Indian Ocean pursuing her very risky dream of sailing around the world? I don't know anything about Australian law, but it's pretty doubtful. If you are asking me if she should pay -- yes, because I see the risks that she took as being well outside the "societal" contract (at least the types that exists in the USA). In other words, I don't think an individual can expect to shift the risk of any and all activities onto society.

As for the tourists near Somalia, they were French, recued by French commandos, no? Again, not sure what the laws in France would say about this -- it may depend on where the tourists were, what they were doing, etc. Don't know enough to express a personal opinion.

For the record, I am not saying they shouldn't be rescued, just discussing who pays.


I believe under maritime treaties the nearest capable country performs a rescue at sea, no questions asked. Hence the French commandos in Somalia, Australian rescue of this girl, Coast Guard pickups near the U.S., etc.
User Avatar
robzilla

 
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2010 4:42 am
Location: Missouri
Thanked: 2 times in 1 post

Postby chugach mtn boy » Wed Jun 30, 2010 11:41 pm

Lolli, these people want attention. They want us to talk about them. They hired a publicist, for heaven's sake. We are not "dissing" some poor "soul." We are doing them a favor by talking about them. In this business, all publicity is good publicity. For proof, just look at DMT--after all this debating, he's just decided to buy her book, even before her ghostwriter has finished the first chapter!
User Avatar
chugach mtn boy

 
Posts: 889
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2006 7:54 pm
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, United States
Thanked: 181 times in 109 posts

Postby Lolli » Thu Jul 01, 2010 12:05 am

Where's the sense of adventure?
What's life about?

Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. Security does not exist in nature, nor do the children of men as a whole experience it. Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than exposure.
User Avatar
Lolli

 
Posts: 810
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2010 7:56 pm
Location: Sweden
Thanked: 108 times in 67 posts

Postby outofstep80 » Thu Jul 01, 2010 3:57 am

Lots of speculation. We know the end result, we know how they are working to capitalize on the situation, but we don’t know how or when the decision was made to embark on the trip and we never will.

I personally like to think Abby went on the trip for the sack of the adventure. Just because the family found ways to capitalize on the trip does not mean she embarked on her adventure for the wrong reasons. I like to think she had a dream and then found a way to capitalize on it.
User Avatar
outofstep80

 
Posts: 310
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 1:17 pm
Location: Manitowoc, Wisconsin, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

PreviousNext

Return to News

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.